Do people actually believe the civil war was about states rights or is this just an elaborate ruse?

They were much more interested in preserving the Union than ending slavery. If ending slavery was their sole ambition they wouldn't have fucked around with all the hmming and hahing that led up to the civil war.

they became interested in preserving the union because there were no seceded states until the civil war, are you retarded?

>they became interested in preserving the union because there were no seceded states until the civil war,
Yes and they entered the civil war with the goal of reincorporating those states into the union. Hence for the north that's what the war was about.

They most certainly weren't going into the war on a crusade against slavery.

the war became about slavery with the emancipation proclamation, preserving the union was a default, not an option

As I say for the south the war was about slavery, their goal was to remain independent so that their slave-heavy agrarian economy wouldn't be threatened just as it was the goal for the north to preserve the union. On the count that both sides obviously had different goals it shouldn't be of any controversy to say that the war was in a sense about both.

>the war became about slavery with the emancipation proclamation
1. The emancipation proclamation only applied in rebel states as Lincoln didn't want to risk the remaining slave states seceding to the confederacy. Thus proving that he valued preserving the Union more than he valued ending slavery.
2. The emancipation proclamation only happened halfway into the war. It wasn't the reason it happened to begin with.

>preserving the union was a default, not an option
What do you mean by this?

>What do you mean by this?
i don't think lincoln and republicans thought that fighting slavery would lead to war. i agree with many of your previous points, but i think they valued preserving the union because they valued ending slavery so much.

>Oppressive
>Foreign
>Dictating your way of life

De facto foreign from the South. Not de jure foreign.

>something something jewish slave traders

They aren't foreign no matter how you cut it, they had regional differences but they were not foreign, travel at that point between the south and north was common and assloads of people had family on the other side of the Mason-Dixon Line.

>They aren't foreign no matter how you cut it, they had regional differences but they were not foreign, travel at that point between the south and north was common and assloads of people had family on the other side of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The differences between North and South was just as strong as the differences between the geographic regions of Europe. "American" was an artificial identity from its conception.

[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]

>"American" was an artificial identity

protip: this isn't a meaningful statement

No it wasn't. They had a common language, and common beliefs on almost every value that wasn't tied to their vastly different economic systems. Any nationality is an "artificial" identity since all are made up of individuals but if we look at who they identified as, their ethnic composition, religion, language and values it's hard to classify them as foreign from each other.

>Thus proving that he valued preserving the Union more than he valued ending slavery.

People always say this like it's a smoking gun or something, but that was what he was saying his entire career. That slavery is unambiguously an evil institution and he wanted to end it as soon as possible, but "as soon as possible" doesn't mean at the expense of holding the country together. The south seceded at his election, because *eventually* ending slavery was still unacceptable to them.

For what? The first half is obvious. The second half is my opinion.

>"American" was an artificial identity from its conception.

Here's your (you). Now go be retarded somewhere else

>A bunch of Englishmen want to raise moral to fight against their motherland
>Start calling themselves "American" instead of English.

I stand by my statement.

>it's a Lost Cause episode again

General Lee saw himself as a Virginian first and American second. What does that tell you about American "identity?"

And? He still did consider himself American. Plenty of areas have divisions and identities that they take more seriously than nationality but that doesn't negate that nationality. India for example, they identify as Tamil or whatever before they'd identify as Indian but they still have that nationality and they certainly aren't considered "foreign"

It was actually about drill presses.

Funny you'd mention India. A place who's dubious identity is often accused of being a colonial construct.

>another reactionary video from another reactionary youtube channel
>implying I'll give this the time of day

all nationalities are constructs you retard. That doesn't mean they're foreign. In fact even Pakistan, Nepal, and Banghladesh are hardly foreign to them

>because the southern states didn't give a shit about states rights when they had their three presidents before lincoln
Explain yourself.

A neo-imperial colonial construct is far different from an organic construct.

Are you trolling me? the US was literally a colonial construct

Exactly. ARTIFICAL

THEY ARE ALL ARTIFICIAL. WE ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM INDIA IN THIS RESPECT. In fact if anything the US is far more unified, even then than India ever will be due to an affinity in our values, common language, etc. I've already been over this. The North was never a foreign entity from the South

I used the word "foreign" to tongue and cheekily describe how radically different the North was from the South.

Ever hear of the 11 nations of North America? I generally agree with that thesis. The 11 nations are organic constructs. "America" isn't. You can disagree of course.

that's not what it is at all though

>the jewish are now a bunch of saints that never did anything wrong

They pissed off YHWH several times.

Now I always shitpost about the kikes but would you say that the Hebrew language is cool enough to learn? I kinda want to read the Torah.

southerners argued that northern states keeping runaway slaves was a violation of federal laws

It was. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

*war of northern agression

...

>Strawman's all dissenters as Cliché stereotype
>"Smart" liberal

>refuse to adapt economically
>bleeding kansas
>try to take a giant dump on the consitution
>attack a fort

THIS IS THE NORTH'S FAULT REEEEEEE

Which massive dump was that? Slavery was codified by giving slave owners rights in the constitution.

if you want to talk constitution look at the 14th amendment with slavery in mind

It explains that it was over slavery, ya dingus

>be north
>constantly try and destroy south (see: tariffs of 1828)
>decide to elect most controversial president ever
>war starts
>pretend the CSA is just a rebellion, not a country, but loot and pillage the south anyways
>suspend habias corpus because "muh riots"
>fight war of attrition and use human wave tactics because troops are in large supply
>still manage to get fucked by southern "army" countless times
>realize the south is about to get britian to help
>declare emancipation proclamation to keep slave-free countries of britian & co. from helping CSA after epically failing in the trent affair
>make speech about slavery to try and save face

IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY GUYS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE

>Southern Apologists are this deluded

hoooo boy!

For fucks sakes you faggots, just read the Declarations of Secession for Mississippi and South Carolina, and it will be obvious that it was BOTH slavery AND states rights

>no argument

>Hmmm, i'll just leave this fort on foreign soil, what could possibly go wrong XD

>foreign

That's US soil.

>packs up fort and leaves

No it's not, that state exercised it's right to secession

Election happened in November 1860. Secession happened after that.

>they just wanted to end slavery
No, they wanted the South to stop fucking up Kansas

they didn't build the fort after the states seceded, your whole argument is retarded.

/thread/

Please. Abe got elected and the entire South collectively said "REEEEE #notmypresident" and their progenitors are now smug as can be to the people behaving the same way in regards to Trump

>be Confederate apologist
>come up with "states rights" sophistry because those troops won't recruit themselves
>hundreds of years later, NEETs on the internet repeat your bullshit like it's gospel and never question it

I wish my memes would be that long-lasting desu.

States Rights didn't show up until after the war. As it was ongoing they were quite honest about it. "States Rights" memery shows up after the war, in Southern Universities, because Southern States had an active policy of trying to misrepresent the conflict.

>progenitors
progeny*

Tired and esl

Hahaha

>It is the state's right to decide whether it will own slaves!
>100 years later
>... It is also the state's right to decide whether it will segregate, by the way!

There were American historians that genuinely believed and perpetrated the myth of the Lost Cause, if that's what you're asking

Bits of both i would guess

Those who know nothing about the Civil War know that is what about Slavery.

Those who know a little about the Civil War know it was about States Rights.

Those who know a lot about the Civil War know that is was about Slavery.

Anyone who says the War was ONLY about Slavery are just as uniformed as those who say the war was ONLY about States rights.

The hundreds of economic, governmental, societal, and demographic, circumstances leading to the Civil War are so numerous and complicated that an entire genre of academic study is devoting to determining what "caused" the Civil War.

The only reasonable way to sum up the War (and it still leaves much to be desired), is that the War was between one Society and another Society, that could no longer coexist.

>judging whether something was constitutional by using an amendment that was ratified after said event
Right. Fuck off.

>those bumps in the 1840s and 1860s
Oh my, what could have possibly occurred during those decades to cause such an increase?

They had union men garrisonned in Southern land. Here's an analogy:
>Modern Ireland cecedes from Britain
>Britain keeps thousands of troops in Irish land afterwards
>Ireland attacks foreign soldiers who overstay welcome
Yeah look at those Sotherness sperging out at an external power keeping soldiers within their borders! xD

>when you realize that the Samrat Chakravartin of Aryavarta is a colonial construct.

South Carolina sold the island that Fort Sumter was on to the Federal government prior to the war. South Carolina was in the right to secede but they had absolutely no right to claim US Federal property as their own.

The moment the Confederate Government fired at Ft. Sumter the US Government had every right to levy war on the Confederate Government.

And all this is theoretical anyways because literally none of the Southern States seceded by a legal Constitutional convention, their State governments (with the notable exceptions of Virginia and Tennessee, which held highly biased and quasi-legitimate referendums) just up and voted to take them out of the Union.

The State Governments never agreed to the US Constitution, the people of the States agree to it via Constitutional delgations and that is the only way a State has any legal basis to leave the Union.

No fair and equal Constitutional Convention, no legal secession.